Archive for the ‘Abortion’ Category

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Monday, August 31st, 2009

What started out to be discussion over badly needed healthcare reform has been quickly transformed to an attempt to replay the November election.

One need look no further than the groups that support healthcare reform and those that oppose it.

Those that support it include every industry organization – insurance, hospitals, physicians, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. Even patients represented by organizations like the AARP support reform. Finally most all the groups that supported President Obama in the last election also support healthcare reform.

The primary opposition is the Republican Party. Their motivation is obvious. It is an opportunity to regain the political advantage. They have gone so far as to say that defeating healthcare would be Obama’s Waterloo. Their tactics are not much different than they were last November. Rather than engage in an honest debate about alternatives, they attack the President’s trustworthiness. Unbiased sites like factcheck.org and politifact.org document the lies, but the polls show the strategy is working.

In lockstep with the Republican Party are Fox News, IBD, Rush Limbaugh, and other right wing media talking heads. Their motivation is simple – money. They feed on hate. They create an “us versus them” mob mentality and chuckle all the way to the bank. When Glen Beck claims that a mixed race man raised by his white grandparents is a racist, he gains viewers from those who fear African Americans. When Fox supports Tea Parties and disrupting public meetings, those who participate get on TV and Fox becomes the #1 news network. When Rush said he hopes the President fails, he becomes the voice of the Republican party. When he claims the President will mandate circumcision, his ratings go up. Reasonable people shake their heads, but the twenty percent or so of those who hate President Obama get all that more radicalized and empowered to act.

Those opposed to abortion have joined in. They continue to beat their drum has hard as they can. Fox and the Republican party give them a platform. The healthcare bills present another opportunity for this group to lobby to change the laws. Even though current government coverage allows payment for abortion in the case of rape, incest, or the maternal health; they object to even this coverage in any future bill.

Finally, there are the right wing special interest groups who have used the Obama presidency as an opportunity to increase their fund raising and membership. Gun sales have risen dramatically since November. People are now taking guns to the sites of Presidential speeches.

The only thing that all of these groups can agree on is their hate of our President. They are being manipulated by those who seek political or monetary gain. They gain comfort from those who share their views. They are not talking to those who disagree with them. It has gone so far that clergy are now encouraging their members to pray for Obama’s death.

This has to stop.

Just as Bill O’Reilly bears responsibility for his part in the murder of the physician he called a “baby killer”, those who preach hate for our President bear the responsibility for his wellbeing. They may not be the ones who pull the trigger, but they help load the gun when they demonize President Obama.

Those who encourage this behavior are trying to dismantle our democracy for their own personal gain. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Human Will

Monday, June 1st, 2009

“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” John 5:30

The culture wars have claimed another victim.

I find it very difficult to understand how someone can call themselves a Christian and use that position to justify murder. It is hard enough for me to understand how nations that call themselves Christian can start wars. When an individual takes a gun, points it at another human being, and pulls the trigger, they are not doing God’s will.

It does not matter what the circumstances are.

It does not matter what the person has done.

There are no exception clauses to “thou shalt not kill”.

The nonviolence of the early Christian Church was legendary and ultimately so impressed the Romans that they stopped killing Christians and converted to Christianity themselves.

Jesus came to earth to share a new gospel of love. He came to deepen the understanding of those who saw God as capricious and vengeful. Jesus told us that God is a tender Father, a shepherd, and our guardian.

Those who seek to violently act in His name, are taking His name in vain. They are underestimating God’s power and completely missing His message. They are assuming that because they see sin in the world, that somehow God needs their help.

God doesn’t need their help.

God not only doesn’t ask us to be executioners, He doesn’t even want us to be judges.

He asks us to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. He asks us to be peacemakers. He asks us to turn the other cheek and walk with those with whom we disagree until at least we understand them.

Those who demonize their opposition suffer from self-righteousness. They will find out soon enough that God loves everyone, and the simple sinner who humbly repents will find himself closer to God than the righteous man who condemns the unrighteous.

God reserves judgment to Himself and those who seek to usurp that role will discover soon enough how wrong they were.

Strife

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

“He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.” I Timothy 6:4-7

The one issue of abortion raised it’s head again in the form of a commencement invitation to President Obama.

There are a lot of things that you can draw from this, but let me take a shot at a couple.

First some background.

The controversy is that the invitation was from Notre Dame – a private Catholic institution. So, the thought goes, the University should pick commencement speakers that reflect the position of the Catholic church. Because President Obama does not support the Catholic Church’s position on abortion and stem cell research, many including South Bend Bishop John D’Arcy have said that they won’t attend.

The curious thing is that President Obama is not the first pro-choice commencement speaker at Notre Dame. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Pierre Trudeau are just a few who have been invited to speak to Notre Dame graduating classes. I wonder if Bishop D’Arcy skipped those too.

It’s also interesting that 54% of Catholics across the country voted for Obama in the most recent election going against the advise of many of their Bishops. The Democrat Obama carried Indiana for the first time in forty years. He also carried St Joseph’s county were Notre Dame is located.

So what’s going on?

One thing for certain is that Catholics as a group appear to have a larger political agenda than just abortion. They may be influenced by the president’s commitment to extending health insurance to children, rectifying imbalances in a tax code neglectful of the working man, and persuading Congress to allocate abundant resources for educational reform. These all coincide strongly with church teaching. The president and the Catholic Church are also both on the same side in their early opposition to the Iraq war, exploitation of immigrants, and global warming.

What else may be going on?

Notre Dame has roots in the Catholic Church, but it is a private institution in the greatest traditions of any University in the country. That means that they embrace diversity and encourage dialog. It was not an accident that they invited Obama or an accident that he accepted. They knew it would cause the controversy that it has, and they welcome it. That’s because it sends the message that issues like abortion SHOULD be discussed if we ever hope to resolve them.

Finally, I think that we are starting to see the seeds of the end of the culture wars. Some have gone as far as to predict the impending collapse of the evangelical movement. The reason is that that people are tired of the politics of division and demonization. They are moving to the center and increasingly rejecting the strident rhetoric of both sides.

If this comes to pass, the polarized positions and the groups that support them will be increasingly regarded as damaging the larger common good. Radicalism will give way to conformity. The old battle lines will disappear and just like the fifties, public policy will reflect our new shared vision of social order rather than an attempt to impose a particular morality. Our kids will resolve the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate and wonder why we all wasted so much time and effort on it and ignored so many other more important topics.

Peeping

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

“And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead?” Isa 8:19

There were a couple of interesting things coming together in the last few weeks that seem to have a common thread. The thread is that some people find an idea so compelling that they become blind to any facts which undermine their position.

One is the ongoing Pro-Life opposition to the Obama election. The second is a report regarding the death penalty. The third is the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a suit challenging President-Elect Obama’s citizenship.

One of the dominant themes of Senator McCain’s campaign was that you can’t trust President-Elect Obama. That point of view appealed to Pro-Lifers, Racists, Libertarians, Liberal-haters, Gay-haters, Free-Marketers, Isolationists, and many who legitimately questioned Senator Obama’s experience. McCain may have succeeded in sowing seeds of doubt regarding Obama, but he failed to convince a majority of voters that he was a better choice.

Of the whole spectrum of Obama opponents, the Pro-Lifers seemed most shocked by outcome. Many refuse to accept the election.  Some predict the God will swiftly and decisively punish our country and all those who voted for Obama.

What is fascinating about this position is that, in practical terms, the past eight years of Pro-Life governance did not substantially restrict abortion rights in this country. It is also highly likely given the financial crisis that we are facing, that the next four to eight years won’t see substantial relaxation of abortion restrictions either. So the operative question is what motivates this reaction?

A group advocating changes in our death penalty laws released a report indicating that it now costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to incarcerate them for life. The rest of the report documents that far fewer capital cases are being brought in the courts because states recognize that it is both expensive to prosecute these cases and many convictions end up getting overturned as new evidence becomes available. So the operative question is why do we still have a death penalty?

The Supreme Court recently refused to take up a case claiming that Obama didn’t meet the constitutional citizenship requirements to be President. There is a second case of a similar nature also making its way to the Supreme Court. It will also likely also be rejected. The mainstream media including nonpartisan fact finding organizations have repudiated all of the claims surrounding this controversy. So the operative question is why does this controversy continue to flourish on the Internet even though it has no substance in fact?

The answer to all of the questions appears to be a conspiracy culture described in a Salon article on the citizenship controversy.

“There’s no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody’s mind,” says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master’s degree in psychology. “The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it … Once you’re committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind.”

Any inconvenient facts are irrelevant. People who believe in a conspiracy theory “develop a selective perception, their mind refuses to accept contrary evidence,” Chip Berlet, a senior analyst with Political Research Associates who studies such theories, says. “As soon as you criticize a conspiracy theory, you become part of the conspiracy.” 

 

Let’s examine each of these in the light of this evaluation.

The citizen conspirators are a classic example that requires little additional explanation. When confronted with Obama’s birth announcement in a HI newspaper, the citizen conspirators respond that the announcement doesn’t say where Obama was born, and even if it did, Obama’s parents could have lied, or Obama’s grandparents could have lied, to cover up the fact that he was born somewhere else. I’ve also read some who have suggested that Obama’s real purpose of returning to HI late in his campaign was to tie up the loose ends around this birth certificate cover-up rather than visit his dying grandmother. The reality is that a mountain of simple evidence supports the same simple conclusion that the Supreme Court action reflected. Obama was born in Hawaii and as a result, is a US citizen qualified to be elected President.

Those who support the death penalty have a similar myopia. They are fixated on punishment rather than practicality. As a result, they are willing to spend more money to kill someone rather than imprison them for life. And they are willing to run the fairly high risk that they may be killing an innocent man in order to make sure that they kill the guilty. At the end of the day it makes no difference that the death penalty may no longer be pursued by states attorneys. All that is important is that it is on the books and available for use when the public outrage demands it.

Finally, there is an aspect of this that is even reflected in the Pro-Life movement. That aspect is revealed when you talk with Pro-Lifers about the issue of reducing abortions. You would think on the surface, that this is something Pro-Lifers would welcome regardless of where it comes from. Even if I don’t agree with the premise that life begins at conception, if I’m willing to agree that abortion is bad social policy, shouldn’t that represent common ground?

What I’ve discovered is that, at least for some, the Pro-Life position has nothing to do with the number of abortions that are performed in this country and everything to do with eliminating abortion as choice. It is all about imposing a particular morality rather than addressing a social need. In the case of Barak Obama, this is manifested in the view that it doesn’t matter what Barak Obama does or doesn’t do to reduce the number of abortions in this country. As long as he persists in his view that a woman should have a right to choose an abortion, he is supporting a sinful act, is unqualified for the office, and those who support him are unqualified to call themselves Christians.

So just like the citizenship conspirators and the death penalty advocates, there is an aspect of irrationality in some Pro-lifers. It doesn’t matter that the number abortions in this country is going down at a fairly constant rate regardless of administration. It doesn’t matter that the best years of abortion reduction have occurred during the years when income for the poor rose. It doesn’t matter that good education and easy access to contraception have a direct affect on the birthrate among teenagers.  All that matters is morality.

This is very similar to the conversations with the citizenship conspirators.  They claim that they don’t oppose Obama politically.  All that matters is the constitution.  Or the death penalty advocates.  For them all that matters is justice.

For all three groups, the world easily divides into believers and non believers and what’s worse, they don’t listen to anything a non-believer has to say. That’s because they prefer the peep and mutter of familiar spirits to any truth that may upset their world view.

I don’t know how a democracy effectively handles sections of the electorate who refuse to engage in a rational discussion. The last election proved that these groups are in the minority. Hopefully this minority will recognize that the issues which affect our suvival affect them too, and are far more serious and in need of their attention than those issues which seem to have them mesmerized. 

Reconciliation

Monday, November 17th, 2008

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt 5: 21-24

Jesus was a radical thinker. He confronted the conservative fundamentalism of his time with some very difficult concepts. One of the most difficult concepts for the Jews to accept was reconciliation. They believed that God was vengeful and visited His wrath on sinners in the form of illness, poverty, and misfortune. So it was easy for the Jews to identify sinners and they treated them accordingly.

Jesus rejected that way of thinking. He taught that we are all God’s children. We all need saving, and it was God’s job to judge, not ours. In fact, withholding judgment isn’t nearly enough, we have to figure out how to love everyone – particularly those that we feel were sinners. In this passage from Matthew, Jesus is saying that if any of us are guilty of harboring ANY unkind thoughts about our brother, we are in MORE spiritual danger than murderers.

In other words, as He did through out this chapter, He is expanding the definition of what it means to be a disciple. It’s not enough to just follow the commandments. We have to love our brothers, even if we think they are murderers. That love by the way goes way beyond the simplistic “I love the man but hate the act”. Later in this same chapter He says we have to “walk” with them until we understand them. We have to embrace them, even when we think they have injured us. We have to trust them even when we feel they have stolen from us. In fact, it is so important that we sincerely resolve any differences with our brothers, that we should make that a higher priority than going to church and asking for our own forgiveness.

This is radical thinking that I don’t see many Christians practicing today.

Here’s just one example.

I’ve been corresponding with a handful of different people who felt that a vote for Obama was immoral because President-elect Obama is Pro-Choice. The news last week carried a piece about a Catholic priest in South Carolina who went so far as to suggest that a vote for Obama was a sinful act. As a result, those who committed that act needed to confess that sin before they could receive communion.

This may seem well beyond the pale for many, but I can confirm that there are some who feel that our country is going to suffer the wrath of God because of our failure to elect a Pro-Life Presidential candidate.

I’ve already posted a couple of things on abortion. I won’t repeat those posts here, but just provide a summary and link if anyone wants to do any more research.

http://www.blogsmonroe.com/christianpolitics/category/abortion/

Good ideas bad results – Practical ways to reduce the number of abortions
Eternal Life – Practical reasons why “life begins at conception” doesn’t work
Unto Us a Child is Born – God respects choice
Greater Good – Which is worse, abortion or sin

What I did want to spend some time on is this question of Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice as a political issue.

First a quick summary of the issues.

Pro-Life folks feel that there is Biblical evidence that life begins at conception, so abortion is the equivalent to murder. As a result, they feel it should be treated as murder by our legal system.

Pro-Choice folks are more concerned about the rights of women and the control that women should have over their own bodies.

Roe v. Wade is the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision prohibiting states from enacting legislation prohibiting abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the 1992 Supreme Court decision where the court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade using the principle of stare decisis. Essentially, when something has been law for a long time and has become part of the fabric of society, it is beyond the scope of the courts to change it.

The bottom line is that the past thirty years have polarized the voting public and made a lot of money for politicians on both sides of the issue.

So let’s dig a little deeper into the claim that a a vote for a Pro-life candidate is a moral issue.

First an easy one. If a Pro-Life stance is just a moral litmus test of the character of candidates, I suggest that it is faulty because there have been plenty of Pro-life senators and congressmen over the past eight years who fell far short of the mark as ethical lawmakers. So there it has to be more than that.

If it’s not just a moral litmus test and Pro-Life supporters are looking for real practical change, then shouldn’t those candidates who deliver real change be the ones who earn their vote regardless of whether or not they pass the litmus test?

In other words, since it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade is going to get overturned anytime soon, and the longer it stands the more difficult it will be to overturn, then shouldn’t Pro-Life voters be demanding more substantive practical progress in reducing the number of abortions from their candidates?

Well as you might imagine, I’ve done a little research on the subject. Here are the statistics (abortions per 1000 women of child bearing age) for the last couple Presidents through 2005.

Reagan -  29.28 – 27.37
Bush I -     27.37 – 25.89
Clinton -    25.89 – 21.30
Bush II -     21.30 – 19.41

What is interesting is that the President who had the most dramatic affect on reducing the number of abortions was the only one of the bunch who was Pro-Choice – Bill Clinton.

Here’s the bottom line from what I have learned so far from those single issue Pro-Life voters. They are unconcerned about whether or not the person they voted for actually does anything substantive to change the status quo. They view their vote as a moral imperative that goes beyond any practical measure. They feel that when they vote Pro-Life, they are voting Pro-God.

My concern, at this particular point is time, is that we don’t have the luxury of this sort of debate anymore. We can’t have folks sitting on the sidelines self-righteously predicting God’s wrath for our moral weakness. Our country is in tough shape. Right after 9-11, a call went out to the American people and they responded as one, even though a lot of us thought the wrong person with questionable morals was in the White House then too.

 I think that the situation is even more serious now. We all need to be in the same boat rowing in the same direction because our ship of state is perilously close to the falls. We don’t have time to argue about the details. On some things we are just going to have to agree to disagree at least until we are in a safer place. Hopefully, we CAN all agree that we care enough about each other to put aside partisanship, pick up an oar, and start rowing. 

The Greater Good

Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008

The concept of the greater good has always been active in this country.  It does feel a little like moral relativism, but it is also a call to citizens to sacrifice their own individual goals for the benefit of a larger goal shared by a greater number of people.

Where this gets tough, however, is when the concept of the greater good bumps into what some people consider a moral absolute.  War is an example of that.  The current conflict in Iraq failed the Catholic Church’s “just war” standard and so it has been condemned by the US bishops and the Pope.  Still, many Catholics are serving in Iraq because they feel that their duty to their country is more important than their obligation to obey their church leaders.

Here’s another example that might hit a little closer to home for some. 

New studies indicate that the number of abortions in this country have dropped to its lowest level since 1974.  Some are suggesting that it is an answer to prayer.  When you look more closely, however, many believe that it is the result of relatively easy access to the “morning after” RU-486 pill.

So here’s the greater good thought exercise.

If it is true that easy access to RU-486 does dramatically reduce the need for the more invasive and expensive later term abortion, are those who oppose abortion also going to continue to oppose RU-486?

Roughly a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, most during the first three months.  This drug is generally prescribed during the first two months and induces the same sort of miscarriage.

So what is the greater good here?  A pharmaceutical solution to unwanted pregnancies which may be reducing demand for physician-performed abortions, or the fact that for some, any intentionally terminated pregnancy is unacceptable.

Unto Us a Child is Born

Friday, December 21st, 2007

The news continues to generate interesting juxtapositions of stories.

The latest one is the announced pregnancy of Jamie Lynn Spears, the publisher delaying the release of her mother’s book on Christian parenting, the release of a study showing that sex education does have a positive effect in delaying sexual activity, and a another report showing that teen pregnancies are up for the first time in 14 years.

You’ve probably seen the stories on the 16 year old Disney star’s pregnancy.

There probably isn’t much more to say about her mother’s book.

Here are the facts from the CDC studies.

The first indicates that sex education actually does work in reducing sexual activity of those 15 and younger, particularly among boys. What they also learned is that those boys who did receive sex education and did decide to become sexually active were three times more likely to use contraception. The study also made clear that the earlier that sex education is provided to kids, the more effective it is. The study did not distinguish between programs that emphasized abstinence versus contraception.

According to experts, the report regarding the first increase in teen pregnancy in 14 years indicates that current education and prevention programs have produced all of the reductions that they are going to produce. Bill Albert, deputy director of the Washington, D.C.-based National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy said, “The early wins may have been won. Future efforts may well have to be more intense, focused, and creative if the nation is to make continued progress in reducing teen pregnancy and childbearing. Put another way, yesterday’s way of doing business will no longer suffice.”

I could head off at this point on a discussion speculating how we could be more effective in reducing teen pregnancy, but that would only throw a few more logs onto a culture war fire that doesn’t need my help.

I think it is more interesting to think about a young girl who found herself pregnant through no fault of her own a couple thousand years ago. How frightened she must have been, and at the same time what great courage she must have shown in the choice she made. I’m also always impressed with the faith and trust that her fiancé demonstrated when she told him what had happened to her. Can you even begin imagine the anticipation, terror, pride, and heartbreak they experienced in their lives?

I suspect that every teenager who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant also confronts a set of overwhelming choices. For those of us who are parents, you know that even the planned pregnancies have an element of terror because helping bring another life into the world is such a serious responsibility. Imagine how overwhelming it must feel for those who are still in many ways children, when forced to contemplate the life-changing implications of every option.

Fortunately, then as now, God remains the real parent and creator of everyone. He was there to guide Mary and Joseph. He guided our parents. He is there right now for Jamie Lynn Spears. It’s up to her whether or not she listens.

I know that there are some Christians who feel very strongly that they should be able to judge this process and in some ways limit the choices that women have. I don’t share that view, but not because I don’t consider life sacred. What I do consider sacred is the relationship between God and His creation. It is not my place to try to take His place or the place of the women who have to make these choices every day. The comfort I take in this is that no pregnant woman makes these choices lightly, so I’m sure that most every one in their own way reaches out to God as they decide what to do.

It IS my place to make sure that everyone has good information with which to make wise choices, and access to the resources they need to prevent pregnancy if they choose to sexually active. Reducing unwanted pregnancies is the most effective way to reduce the need for abortion.

It is also my place to listen for God’s voice in my life and celebrate the fact that two thousand years ago He selected a teenage girl to bring His message of love and salvation to a hungry world. What is sometimes missed in this story though, and something I’m even more grateful for, is that God didn’t command this teenage girl to obey His will. He respected her right to choose. So though we use Christmas to celebrate Jesus birth, this holiday is also just as much about Mary’s choice.

Merry Christmas.

Eternal Life

Thursday, March 15th, 2007

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” John 17:3

Over the past week there were a couple of letters to the editor that bothered me. They were ostensibly about a number of different issues, but all managed in one way or another to work back into the claim that the infanticide of abortion should trump all other concerns.

I know that this is an emotional issue for a lot of people. I’ve already posted some thoughts on why this is a disingenuous argument by both liberals and conservatives. The whole discussion has become a litmus test for both ends of the political spectrum. So it suites both sides to continue the polemics rather than seek the common ground of reducing the need for abortions. These diatribes energize the base and enhance fund raising.

In fact, I was reading a blog entry on a conservative site where the term “fertilized egg” is no longer appropriate to describe the moment of conception. The new term is “developing human baby”.

Now maybe this is the result of someone who skipped health class for religious purposes, but it does reveal how silly this whole “life begins at conception” argument really is. I don’t mean to say that it isn’t appealing as a concept. The whole reproductive process is miraculous. It just that it doesn’t work in a way that supports the argument that these blastocysts can be treated legally as people.

If we were to endow “developing human babies” with the same rights as newborns, virtually every sexually active woman would be a murder. That’s because, between menstrual cycles and miscarriage, 33% of all fertilized eggs fail to produce a term pregnancy. In fact the whole system is setup to inhibit fertilization. That’s why invitro methods are so challenging. Contrary to popular myths regarding stem cell research, only 25% of invitro fertilizations result in viable implantation candidates.

Even when a pregnancy occurs normally, roughly 15% fail. About 20% are terminated through legal abortions, and the remaining 65% result in live births. Another interesting statistic is that about 10% of the women in the US capable of having children are currently pregnant.

So here’s a little thought exercise for those who feel that life starts at conception and as a result abortion is a terrible crime against humanity. It starts with an assumption that will appeal to many pro-life advocates. Let’s assume that the only women who are sexually active are those who are pregnant. It’s a fair comparison in any case because these are the only women faced with the choice of terminating their pregnancy. If we also assume 66% fertilization success rate, then women’s bodies kill almost two times as many “developing human babies” as abortion clinics. With a more realistic sexual activity rate of 70% the ratio is 14 times those terminated by abortion clinics.

I could use one of those, if-God-thought-life-began-at-conception-He-would-have-designed-a-better-system arguments, but I think you get the point.

What is truly curious about all of this is that so many good people of faith are just fixated with the wrong end of the spectrum. It isn’t about when life really began because that was when God had the idea that became you or me. No one can honestly say when that was and it is divisive and presumptuous to try. Jesus clearly thought that there was a much more important message to deliver. The big promise He proved was that death has no power over life. His message of salvation to the world is that every idea is unique and precious in the Creator’s mind and that idea, once created, has no end.

Good ideas bad results

Saturday, December 2nd, 2006

One of the big elephants in a room of conservative and progressive Christians is the pro-life pro-choice debate. It is a classic wedge issue which has been used to manipulate voters and identify whether you are part of the “we” camp or the “them” camp.

I don’t think that the issue will ever be settled to everyone’s satisfaction. That’s because choosing to define conception as the moment when life and the full rights of personhood begin also simultaneously restricts the rights of women to control their own bodies and lives. Instead we have to look to issues of women’s health that we can all agree on and look for areas of compromise there that give us a way to move forward.

I think that we CAN all agree that, if possible, abortion should be a medical procedure of last resort. No woman wants to have an abortion.

History already proves that you don’t reduce abortions by making them illegal. You simply force women to take much larger medical risks.

The most practical way to dramatically reduce abortions is to dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies. But here’s where policy appears to run headlong into ideology. Many of those who object to abortion on demand also object to education on safe sexual practices as well as easy access to contraceptive medication and devices. They argue that abstinence and Christian values should be the exclusive focus of sex education.

I’ve got no problem with abstinence education. I believe that those couples who wait until marriage to consummate their relationship receive a special blessing. I think that every child that is interested in learning more about these blessings should hear about them at home, in church, and in school.

Abstinence education alone, however, just doesn’t work. The CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey attributes only 20% of the drop in teen pregnancies to abstinence and 80% to access to effective birth control methods. A recent study from Columbia University supports these facts and questions federal funding of abstinence programs that don’t also discuss contraception. Yet the Bush administration recently appointed Dr. Eric Keroack to head the nation’s family planning program. Dr. Keroack was the head of what the Chicago Sun Times calls “an extremist group” which opposes birth control of any sort. He is now responsible for $283M in Public Health Service Title X funds earmarked to underwrite contraceptive services to women who need them.

If you are curious about what the results of an “abstinence-only“ approach might be, you need look no further than Africa. AIDS infection rates, deaths from illegal abortions, and the number orphaned or abandoned children have skyrocketed there over the past six years as a direct result of the US funding cuts to family planning clinics dispensing condoms and performing abortions. Those cuts were the direct result of the Bush administration replacing international public health policy experts with ideological extremists like Dr. Keroack.

So here’s my take on it. We as a country have to decide what is really important. If dramatically reducing the number of abortions is really important, then we have to take the steps in education (including abstinence) AND easy availability of contraceptives that will dramatically reduce unprotected intercourse. Those parents who don’t want their kids to participate in those classes or have access to those resources can opt out, just as they can today.

Abstinence may be appealing from a purity of purpose point of view, but the results that we are already seeing in Africa suggest that as public policy it is terribly wrong.